1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.145226.February06,2004]

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
[1]

Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekstoreversethedecision datedOctober21,1999
[2]
oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.20700,whichaffirmedthejudgment datedAugust
5,1996oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBohol,Branch4,inCriminalCaseNo.8688.The
trial court found herein petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
bigamy and sentenced him to a prison term of seven (7) months of prision correccional as
minimumtosix(6)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayor as maximum. Also assailed in this
[3]
petitionistheresolution oftheappellatecourt,datedSeptember25,2000,denyingMorigos
motionforreconsideration.
Thefactsofthiscase,asfoundbythecourtaquo,areasfollows:
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran
City, Province of Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978).
After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other.
In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former
replied and after an exchange of letters, they became sweethearts.
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in Canada, they
maintained constant communication.
In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada.
Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina
Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.
On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind.
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a petition for divorce against
appellant which was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992.
[4]

On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa
Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

1/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

Regional Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic) among others,
the declaration of nullity of accuseds marriage with Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony
actually took place.
[5]

On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information filed by the City
Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.

[6]

Thepetitionermovedforsuspensionofthearraignmentonthegroundthatthecivilcasefor
judicialnullificationofhismarriagewithLuciaposedaprejudicialquestioninthebigamycase.
His motion was granted, but subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration by the
prosecution. When arraigned in the bigamy case, which was docketed as Criminal Case No.
8688,hereinpetitionerpleadednotguiltytothecharge.Trialthereafterensued.
On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down its judgment in Criminal Case No.
8688,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of
Prision Mayor as maximum.
[7]

SO ORDERED.

In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted petitioners claim that his first
[8]

marriagetoLuciawasnullandvoidabinitio.FollowingDomingov.CourtofAppeals, thetrial
courtruledthatwantofavalidmarriageceremonyisnotadefenseinachargeofbigamy.The
partiestoamarriageshouldnotbeallowedtoassumethattheirmarriageisvoidevenifsuch
bethefactbutmustfirstsecureajudicialdeclarationofthenullityoftheirmarriagebeforethey
canbeallowedtomarryagain.
[9]

Anent the Canadian divorce obtained by Lucia, the trial court cited Ramirez v. Gmur,
whichheldthatthecourtofacountryinwhichneitherofthespousesisdomiciledandinwhich
one or both spouses may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no
jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the parties. As such, a divorce granted by
said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere. Debunking Lucios defense of good faith in
[10]
contracting the second marriage, the trial court stressed that following People v. Bitdu,
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act
constitutesaviolationofthelawdoesnotexempthimfromtheconsequencesthereof.
Seasonably,petitionerfiledanappealwiththeCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.CR
No.20700.
Meanwhile,onOctober23,1997,orwhileCAG.R.CRNo.20700waspendingbeforethe
appellatecourt,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisioninCivilCaseNo.6020declaringthemarriage
between Lucio and Lucia void ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually took place. No
appealwastakenfromthisdecision,whichthenbecamefinalandexecutory.
OnOctober21,1999,theappellatecourtdecidedCAG.R.CRNo.20700asfollows:
WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

2/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

[11]

SO ORDERED.

In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the appellate court stressed that the
subsequentdeclarationofnullityofLuciosmarriagetoLuciainCivilCaseNo.6020couldnot
[12]
acquitLucio.ThereasonisthatwhatissoughttobepunishedbyArticle349 oftheRevised
Penal Code is the act of contracting a second marriage before the first marriage had been
dissolved.Hence,theCAheld,thefactthatthefirstmarriagewasvoidfromthebeginningisnot
avaliddefenseinabigamycase.
TheCourtofAppealsalsopointedoutthatthedivorcedecreeobtainedbyLuciafromthe
[13]

CanadiancourtcouldnotbeaccordedvalidityinthePhilippines,pursuanttoArticle15 ofthe
CivilCodeandgiventhefactthatitiscontrarytopublicpolicyinthisjurisdiction.UnderArticle
[14]

17 of the Civil Code, a declaration of public policy cannot be rendered ineffectual by a

judgmentpromulgatedinaforeignjurisdiction.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate courts decision, contending that the
[15]

doctrineinMendiolav.People, allows mistake upon a difficult question of law (such as the

effectofaforeigndivorcedecree)tobeabasisforgoodfaith.
[16]

OnSeptember25,2000,theappellatecourtdeniedthemotionforlackofmerit. However,
thedenialwasbyasplitvote.TheponenteoftheappellatecourtsoriginaldecisioninCAG.R.
CRNo.20700,JusticeEugenioS.Labitoria,joinedintheopinionpreparedbyJusticeBernardo
P.Abesamis.Thedissentobservedthatasthefirstmarriagewasvalidlydeclaredvoidabinitio,
thentherewasnofirstmarriagetospeakof.Sincethedateofthenullityretroactstothedateof
the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never married, he
cannotbeconvictedbeyondreasonabledoubtofbigamy.
Thepresentpetitionraisesthefollowingissuesforourresolution:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE
THAT IN CRIMES PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS
AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE [THE] PETITIONERS LACK OF CRIMINAL
INTENT WHEN HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE.
B.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN
PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58 PHIL. 817) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

3/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

THAT EACH AND EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED
[17]
MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
Toourmind,theprimordialissueshouldbewhetherornotpetitionercommittedbigamyand
ifso,whetherhisdefenseofgoodfaithisvalid.
The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for relying in good faith upon the
divorce decree of the Ontario court. He highlights the fact that he contracted the second
marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon bigamy would not be doing. The
petitionerfurtherarguesthathislackofcriminalintentismaterialtoaconvictionoracquittalin
the instant case. The crime of bigamy, just like other felonies punished under the Revised
PenalCode,ismalainse, and hence, good faith and lack of criminal intent are allowed as a
completedefense.Hestressesthatthereisadifferencebetweentheintenttocommitthecrime
and the intent to perpetrate the act. Hence, it does not necessarily follow that his intention to
contractasecondmarriageistantamounttoanintenttocommitbigamy.
Fortherespondent,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)submitsthatgoodfaithinthe
instant case is a convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General relies upon our ruling in
[18]
MarbellaBobisv.Bobis, whichheldthatbigamycanbesuccessfullyprosecutedprovidedall
[19]
theelementsconcur,stressingthatunderArticle40 oftheFamilyCode,ajudicialdeclaration
ofnullityisamustbeforeapartymayremarry.Whetherornotthepetitionerwasawareofsaid
Article40isofnoaccountaseveryoneispresumedtoknowthelaw.TheOSGcountersthat
petitionerscontentionthathewasingoodfaithbecausehereliedonthedivorcedecreeofthe
OntariocourtisnegatedbyhisactoffilingCivilCaseNo.6020,seekingajudicialdeclarationof
nullityofhismarriagetoLucia.
Beforewedelveintopetitionersdefenseofgoodfaithandlackofcriminalintent,wemust
firstdeterminewhetheralltheelementsofbigamyarepresentinthiscase.InMarbellaBobisv.
[20]
Bobis, welaiddowntheelementsofbigamythus:
(1)theoffenderhasbeenlegallymarried
(2)thefirstmarriagehasnotbeenlegallydissolved,orincasehisorherspouseisabsent,
theabsentspousehasnotbeenjudiciallydeclaredpresumptivelydead
(3)hecontractsasubsequentmarriageand
(4)thesubsequentmarriagewouldhavebeenvalidhaditnotbeenfortheexistenceofthe
first.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note that during the pendency of CA
G.R. CR No. 20700, the RTC of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the following decision in Civil
CaseNo.6020,towit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered decreeing the annulment of the
marriage entered into by petitioner Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 in Pilar, Bohol
and further directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pilar, Bohol to effect the cancellation of the marriage
contract.
[21]

SO ORDERED.

ThetrialcourtfoundthattherewasnoactualmarriageceremonyperformedbetweenLucio
andLuciabyasolemnizingofficer.Instead,whattranspiredwasameresigningofthemarriage
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

4/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

contractbythetwo,withoutthepresenceofasolemnizingofficer.Thetrialcourtthusheldthat
[22]
[23]
themarriageisvoidabinitio,inaccordancewithArticles3 and4 oftheFamilyCode.As
thedissentingopinioninCAG.R.CRNo.20700,correctlyputsit,Thissimplymeansthatthere
wasnomarriagetobeginwithandthatsuchdeclarationofnullityretroactstothedateofthe
first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date of the
declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first
[24]

marriage,theaccusedwas,undertheeyesofthelaw,nevermarried. Therecordsshowthat
no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the
decisionhadlongbecomefinalandexecutory.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete.
Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
beingdeclaredvoidabinitio,thetwowerenevermarriedfromthebeginning.Thecontractof
marriageisnullitbearsnolegaleffect.Takingthisargumenttoitslogicalconclusion,forlegal
purposes,petitionerwasnotmarriedtoLuciaatthetimehecontractedthemarriagewithMaria
Jececha.Theexistenceandthevalidityofthefirstmarriagebeinganessentialelementofthe
crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where
thereisnofirstmarriagetospeakof.Thepetitioner,must,perforcebeacquittedoftheinstant
charge.
[25]

Thepresentcaseisanalogousto,butmustbedistinguishedfromMercadov.Tan. Inthe
lattercase,thejudicialdeclarationofnullityofthefirstmarriagewaslikewiseobtainedafterthe
secondmarriagewasalreadycelebrated.Weheldthereinthat:
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be
legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial
declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes
[26]
as void.
It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemnized not
justonce,buttwice:firstbeforeajudgewhereamarriagecertificatewasdulyissuedandthen
again six months later before a priest in religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage
appearedtohavetranspired,althoughlaterdeclaredvoidabinitio.
In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly
authorizedsolemnizingofficer.PetitionerandLuciaBarretemerelysignedamarriagecontract
ontheirown.Themereprivateactofsigningamarriagecontractbearsnosemblancetoavalid
marriageandthus,needsnojudicialdeclarationofnullity.Suchactalone,withoutmore,cannot
bedeemedtoconstituteanostensiblyvalidmarriageforwhichpetitionermightbeheldliablefor
bigamyunlesshefirstsecuresajudicialdeclarationofnullitybeforehecontractsasubsequent
marriage.
ThelawabhorsaninjusticeandtheCourtismandatedtoliberallyconstrueapenalstatute
infavorofanaccusedandweigheverycircumstanceinfavorofthepresumptionofinnocence
to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances of the present case, we held that
petitionerhasnotcommittedbigamy.Further,wealsofindthatweneednottarryontheissue
of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and
academic.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.Theassaileddecision,datedOctober21,
1999 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 20700, as well as the resolution of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

5/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

appellate court dated September 25, 2000, denying herein petitioners motion for
reconsideration, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is
ACQUITTEDfromthechargeofBIGAMYonthegroundthathisguilthasnotbeenprovenwith
moralcertainty.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andTinga,JJ.,concur.
[1]

Rollo, pp. 3844. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Associate Justices
MarinaL.BuzonandEdgardoP.Cruz.

[2]

Records,pp.114119.

[3]

Rollo,pp.4658.PerAssociateJusticeEdgardoP.Cruz,withAssociateJusticesCancioC.GarciaandMarina
L.Buzon,concurringandEugenioS.LabitoriaandBernardoP.Abesamis,dissenting.

[4]

Her correct name is Maria Jececha Limbago (Italics for emphasis). See Exh. B, the copy of their marriage
contract.Records,p.10.

[5]

TheaccusatoryportionofthechargesheetfoundinRecords,p.1,reads:

That,onoraboutthe4thdayofOctober,1992,intheCityofTagbilaran,Philippines,andwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedbeingpreviouslyunitedinlawfulmarriage
with Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did
thenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslycontractasecondmarriagewithMariaJecechaLimbago
tothedamageandprejudiceofLuciaBarreteintheamounttobeprovedduringtrial.
ActscommittedcontrarytotheprovisionsofArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.
[6]

Rollo,pp.3840.

[7]

Records,p.119.

[8]

G.R.No.104818,17September1993,226SCRA572.

[9]

42Phil.855,863(1918).

[10]

58Phil.817(1933).

[11]

Rollo,p.43.

[12]

ART. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prisionmayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a
second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.

[13]

Art.15.Lawsrelatingtofamilyrightsandduties,ortothestatus,conditionandlegalcapacityofpersonsare
bindinguponcitizensofthePhilippines,eventhoughlivingabroad.

[14]

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the
lawsofthecountryinwhichtheyareexecuted.

WhentheactsreferredtoareexecutedbeforethediplomaticorconsularofficialsoftheRepublicof
the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in
theirexecution.
Prohibitivelawsconcerningpersons,theiractsorproperty,andthosewhichhavefortheirobject
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

6/7

1/22/2015

Morigo vs People : 145226 : February 6, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated,orbydeterminationsorconventionsagreeduponinaforeigncountry.
[15]

G.R.Nos.8998384,6March1992,207SCRA85.

[16]

Rollo,p.51.

[17]

Id.at2021.

[18]

G.R.No.138509,31July2000,336SCRA747,752753.

[19]

Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solelyofafinaljudgmentdeclaringsuchpreviousmarriagevoid.

[20]

Supra.

[21]

CARollo,p.38.

[22]

Art.3.Theformalrequisitesofmarriageare:

(1)Authorityofthesolemnizingofficer
(2)AvalidmarriagelicenseexceptinthecasesprovidedforinChapter2ofthisTitleand
(3)Amarriageceremonywhichtakesplacewiththeappearanceofthecontractingpartiesbeforethe
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presenceofnotlessthantwowitnessesoflegalage.
[23]

Art.4.Theabsenceofanyoftheessentialorformalrequisitesshallrenderthemarriagevoidabinitio,except
asstatedinArticle35(2).

AdefectinanyoftheessentialrequisitesshallrenderthemarriagevoidableasprovidedinArticle
45.
Anirregularityintheformalrequisitesshallnotaffectthevalidityofthemarriagebutthepartyor
partiesresponsiblefortheirregularityshallbecivilly,criminallyandadministrativelyliable.
[24]

Rollo,p.54.

[25]

G.R.No.137110,1August2000,337SCRA122.

[26]

Id.at124.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/145226.htm

7/7